Jump to content

HM Solomon I

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    410

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by HM Solomon I

  1. HM Solomon I
    That doesn't change how dumb this move is.
  2. HM Solomon I
    Yeah this is about as bad as it gets. If you can't even defend protectorates, who on Bob will think you can come to the defense of a full-scale alliance?
  3. HM Solomon I
    This is such a train wreck. It's actually worse than ignoring an MDP because it's a protectorate. Trust is the currency of this world because it's the currency of politics and diplomacy. An alliance viewed as not holding up its agreements is unlikely to find it easy to strike new ones or maintain existing ones, unless it has something truly incredible to offer. I don't think SNX has much if anything to offer. Tell me again how Pacifica is not a real alliance.
  4. HM Solomon I
    You had the right to attack them unprovoked? Also good to end the discussion with we don't care after spending 14 pages making it very clear you do care.
  5. HM Solomon I
    The problem is that all throughout this thread you have claimed much more than this. You have claimed that SWF was in the wrong for retaliating, but they were most certainly within their rights to do so as a sovereign alliance. The onus is not on the defender to sort things out, the onus is on the attacker. Your argument has now devolved to pure straw men and ad hominems. The fact that you now have to resort to claiming that you're in the right because I am in an alliance that has done things that you believe to be wrong is telling. Here's a hint, irrespective of anything I or my alliance has done, deflecting will not change the current situation.
  6. HM Solomon I
    Relatively civil? How does that justify anything? No one seems to be claiming you're barbaric anything, they're just claiming you are thoroughly in the wrong in this situation. Claiming that really, compared to some, you're normally pretty good guys doesn't change anything; it's just a straw man.
  7. HM Solomon I
    Doesn't everything? :P
  8. HM Solomon I
    The best part is this was after Sir Kindle declared so far the only war against NPO.
  9. HM Solomon I
    NATO's treaty no longer exists, as far as I know the Shangri-La one is still active though. Shangri-La doesn't list any treaties at all on its forums for me to confirm this.
  10. HM Solomon I
    I honestly don't know either.
  11. HM Solomon I
    Agreed. This is also why constitutions and laws matter and why they're relevant to this thread. By legally disclaiming responsibility to protect and defend raiders when their raids go bad, MI has shown it knows about the potential consequences of such raids. Otherwise there would be no reason for such a provision. Given this, complaining about these negative consequences is disingenuous at best. If you cannot or will not control your members, what good is a government, and why would others even make a distinction between the two? Why should they care if it was the act of an alliance or its members? And why would anyone care whether it was an attack made by the alliance? Your laws permit their actions, so the alliance condones their actions because if it didn't their actions wouldn't be permitted in the first place. If the alliance condones its raiding members' actions, it must accept that others will see any such actions as those of the alliance.
  12. HM Solomon I
    I'm sorry this has to be a joke. I cannot believe anyone is really this dumb.
  13. HM Solomon I
    Is this also an "internal policy"? If so, you used an incorrect term twice, and the second time deliberately in order to respond misleadingly to a legitimate point. If not, then where does this come from, because either you're claiming kingzog is a liar or you're not and he's correctly citing your laws. If it's the latter, then you violated your Charter by failing to enforce the laws it provides the means to make.
  14. HM Solomon I
    Your spokesperson doesn't share this opinion. Maybe you added it in, and maybe you didn't, but is it any wonder your members have done stupid stuff like attack other alliance without regard for the consequences or extort for peace when even your leaders don't seem to know what your laws actually say. Get your own house in order before you criticize others.
  15. HM Solomon I
    Where in this Charter does it even say that raiders attack at their own risk, never mind that members are restricted in who they're allowed to attack. In fact, the Charter doesn't even talk about raids at all. It just says that membership status can be revoked for several offenses "or any other dreadful crime". Attacking a sovereign alliance and getting other members of your alliance attacked as a consequence, and extorting for peace, all sound like dreadful crimes to me. It seems not even MI knows what MI's Charter says.
  16. HM Solomon I
    Clearly this cannot be denied.
  17. HM Solomon I
    So your conducting tech deals, good I guess. Not sure how that makes you superior in any way ...
  18. HM Solomon I
    I have to admit, I lol'ed at this. Tell us more about your superior aids.
  19. HM Solomon I
    This. No point in having that clause in your Charter if you're just going to ignore it. Yes, SWF escalated the situation, but it seems a bit silly that if the defender escalates the original attackers get let off with a slap on the wrist while the alliance suffers. Surely if the defender escalates, the raiders should be punished even more harshly.
  20. HM Solomon I
    Probably not, but unwanted help could be met with hostility if an alliance believes its sovereignty is being challenged.
  21. HM Solomon I
    o/ NPO o/ DT
  22. HM Solomon I
    What if another alliance doesn't want the help?
  23. HM Solomon I
    It does say something when an alliance harbors a deserter because it says something about the standards that alliance has.
  24. HM Solomon I
    How is a 7 member, 75k total NS alliance going shell out 1200T or 52m for every new member? Tune in next week to find out.
  25. HM Solomon I
    Why would anyone vote no to that!?
×
×
  • Create New...